ATP written expiration

[BGSkyGuy]

A little additional discussion may be in order here.

Are you just going out and trying to get your ATP on your own, or are you trying to get your ATP issued on a part 135 PIC checkride?

It makes a difference. Originally, the intent of the exception was to allow the use of an expired knowledge test result on an upgrade ride for an operation requiring an ATP certificate. The regulation has evolved over the years, with the requirements growing looser with each step, but if you go back a ways, you will find that in order to use this exemption, you had to be:

1. Employed by an operator within 24 months of taking the ATP written.

2. That employment had to be continuous to the current date

3. The operator had to be one in which the ATP was a requirement for ATP, 121 or 135 *commuter* operation. It wasn't just any old 135 operation.

4. You had to have passed the upgrade training for and meet all the requirements for PIC in that operation.

That's the history behind the exemption. It's not just some freebie for the heck of it. It was specifically to use on an upgrade to a captain position.

So, back to the case at hand;

Tell us more about the specific situation:

What type of 135 operation is involved?

Are you getting the ATP on your own (the original post seems to suggest this)

Have you completed all the requirments for the company upgrade training?

If you have completed the upgrade training for PIC in commuter operations and you are seeking to use the exipred ATP result on your company captain's checkride and the examiner says you can't, he is wrong. period. This is precisely the situation the exeption is written for.

If you are wanting to use the ATP result to get your ATP on your own, this is less clear. If you've completed all the requirements for a captain upgrade, why are you looking to get an ATP on your own? Why not just get it on your upgrade ride?

I know, this doesn't answer the question, but it's something to think about.

Let's say that you are employed by a Day VFR single engine part 135 operator. Can you use an expired ATP exam to get your ATP?

No. You have not met the requirements to take advantage of the exemption. Remeber, it's not just *any* PIC training it is "...the operator's approved (i) Pilot in Command aircraft qualification training program that is appropriate to the certificate and rating sought....."

And that means PIC training for a PIC position in multiengine sheduled commuter operations.

ie: PIC training to fly a C-207 in on demand operations doesn't doesn't require an ATP, so it's not "appropriate to the certificate sought"

Currently I am flying 135 on demand in a BE20 which obviously does not require an ATP. I am hoping to upgrade to Westwind Captain this winter and am trying to figure out if I need to retake the written. My written was 18 mos old when I got hired and I've been here ever since. I got a call back from our POI who told me that without a question it was valid. I asked him if I could go to a local examiner and take it outside of the company and he said yes.

The thing that has me worried after reading your post is the idea that it has to be under SCHEDULED 135. This was also mentioned to me by the examiner who told me it was NOT valid. I've been given false info by the feds before and I'm just afraid of going to simuflite and finding out that it's not valid. Should I call Simuflite and ask them? This whole thing is making my head hurt.

 

[A Squared]

Currently I am flying 135 on demand in a BE20 which obviously does not require an ATP. I am hoping to upgrade to Westwind Captain this winter and am trying to figure out if I need to retake the written. My written was 18 mos old when I got hired and I've been here ever since. I got a call back from our POI who told me that without a question it was valid. I asked him if I could go to a local examiner and take it outside of the company and he said yes.

The thing that has me worried after reading your post is the idea that it has to be under SCHEDULED 135. This was also mentioned to me by the examiner who told me it was NOT valid. I've been given false info by the feds before and I'm just afraid of going to simuflite and finding out that it's not valid. Should I call Simuflite and ask them? This whole thing is making my head hurt.

Regarding the scheduled bit; that's not the *only* 135 operation which requres an ATP, it's also required for turbojet ops with 10 or more passenger seats, does the Westwind have 10 or more passenger seats? If so, I'd say you have a rock solid case.

If not, then it becomes an area that might turn on individual interpretation.

 

[Amish RakeFight]

A Squared,

Apprarently things seemed to have changed then, as I'm certain that my understanding was correct at some point in time when I had taken my ATP written.


Just so I understand you:

Let's say Joe CFI takes his ATP written on 01/01/2009.

He CFI's for the next 3 years.

On 01/01/2012 Joe gets hired by a 121 airline.

On 01/01/2015, Joe's number comes up and is eligible for the coveted upgrade.

Are you saying that the ATP written is still good for an upgrade and ATP practical under these circumstances? In other words, Joe can get hired with an expired ATP written and sit FO until his upgrade and use this written to upgrade with?

Also, let's say on 01/01/2015 Joe is furloughed instead and gets hired by a different 121 airline 5 months later. If he remained with this airline and upgraded, he would still be able to use that same expired ATP written?

 

[A Squared]

A Squared,

Apprarently things seemed to have changed then, as I'm certain that my understanding was correct at some point in time when I had taken my ATP written.

Depends, when did you take it? The requirement for the employment to be continuous was removed sometime in the 1980's or 90's (existed in 1984, gone by 1992) and the requirement that employment start within 24 months I think was removed in the 1997 re-write of Part 61. For sure it had disapeared by 2000.

Just so I understand you:

Let's say Joe CFI takes his ATP written on 01/01/2009.

He CFI's for the next 3 years.

On 01/01/2012 Joe gets hired by a 121 airline.

On 01/01/2015, Joe's number comes up and is eligible for the coveted upgrade.

Are you saying that the ATP written is still good for an upgrade and ATP practical under these circumstances? In other words, Joe can get hired with an expired ATP written and sit FO until his upgrade and use this written to upgrade with?

Also, let's say on 01/01/2015 Joe is furloughed instead and gets hired by a different 121 airline 5 months later. If he remained with this airline and upgraded, he would still be able to use that same expired ATP written?

As far as I can tell, both are true. Can you see anything written in the regulation that would prohibit either?

Like I said, previous versions of the regulation had language that specifically prohibited using an expired exam result in either case, but that language has obviously been removed. I take that as a pretty clear sign that those requriements have been removed.

 

[A Squared]

When you say "examiner" do you mean a designee or an FAA inspector?

If it's an Examiner Designee, ie: not an FAA employee, ask him about this, it's from Order 8710.3E, Designated Pilot and Flight Engineer Examiners' Handbook, in other words, it's his instruction manual. The excerpt below is from Chapter 11, Section 1, subsection 2:

D. Expired Knowledge Test Report. An applicant who is applying for an aircraft type rating to be added to an ATP certificate or an aircraft type rating concurrently with an ATP certificate may take the practical test with an expired knowledge test report provided the applicant is employed as a flight crewmember:
(1) By a certificate holder under 14 CFR parts 121, 125, or 135 at the time of the practical test and has satisfactorily accomplished the operator’s approved pilot-in-command (PIC) aircraft qualification training program that is appropriate to the certificate or rating sought, or
(2) In U.S. military air transport operations at the time of the practical test, and has accomplished the PIC aircraft qualification training program that is appropriate to the certificate and rating sought.

If he's a Fed, ask him to refer to this, its from Order 8900.1 which is the FAA inspector's instruction manual. THis excerpt is from Volume 5, Chapter 2, Section 18, which is instructions for conducting an ATP checkride under Part 61

E. ATP Certificate or Additional Rating. In accordance with § 61.39(b), an applicant for an ATP certificate or an additional rating to an airline transport certificate may take the practical test for that certificate or rating with an expired knowledge test report, provided that the applicant:
1) Is employed as a flight crewmember by a certificate holder under 14 CFR part 121, 125, or 135 at the time of the practical test, and
2) The applicant meets the following requirements:
a) Has satisfactorily accomplished that operator’s approved pilot-in-command (PIC) aircraft qualification training program that is appropriate to the certificate and rating sought and qualification training requirements appropriate to the certificate and rating sought; or
b) Is employed as a flight crewmember in scheduled U.S. military air transport operations at the time of the practical test, and has accomplished the PIC aircraft qualification training program that is appropriate to the certificate and rating sought.

So, in either case, whether he's a fed or a designee, his manual makes it quite clear that there are proivisions for using an expired knowledge exam (even under part 61)

So if he says somone can't use an expired exam result, period. He is wrong. Period.

However, in your specific case, it still (in my opinion) hinges on; "......... qualification training program that is appropriate to the certificate and rating sought." And how "apropriate to the certificate" is interpreted. The most restrictive interpretation is that it means a qualification training program for PIC in an operation which requires an ATP certificate. You may find inspecors who are willing to interpret it less stringently.


It might be less stressful in the long run to bang out the ATP written again, then you *know* you're not at the mercy of someone who may or may not see things the way you want.

 

[avbug]

I've been given false info by the feds before and I'm just afraid of going to simuflite and finding out that it's not valid.

Just take the test again, for crying out loud. It's not that big a deal. Have a fresh copy, and you don't have to worry about who says what, or who allows what.

So far as "false info by the feds," that wouldn't happen to have been at the FSDO level, would it?

The FSDO level isn't authorized to interpret regulation, and whatever you get from the FSDO isn't worth more than an opinion from the man on the street. It's not defensible either, even if you get it in writing. In other words, if you base your actions on what you've received from the FSDO and it's wrong, you can't use that as a defense later...because the FSDO doesn't have the authorization to interpret the regulation for you.

There are three sources for an understanding of the regulation, in order:

Preambles to the Federal Register
The Code of Federal Regulations (the "FAR's")
Office of Chief Counsel legal interpretations

Additional supporting insight is case law regarding a given matter which, while setting precedent, does not carry the weight of the above three, or actually interpret the regulation.

 

[A Squared]

So far as "false info by the feds," that wouldn't happen to have been at the FSDO level, would it?

The FSDO level isn't authorized to interpret regulation, and whatever you get from the FSDO isn't worth more than an opinion from the man on the street. It's not defensible either, even if you get it in writing. In other words, if you base your actions on what you've received from the FSDO and it's wrong, you can't use that as a defense later...because the FSDO doesn't have the authorization to interpret the regulation for you.

There are three sources for an understanding of the regulation, in order:

Preambles to the Federal Register
The Code of Federal Regulations (the "FAR's")
Office of Chief Counsel legal interpretations

Good comments, Avbug, and I agree 100%. I've beat that same drum myself. I should clarify what I meant, when referring to inspectors/DEs "interpreting" as it might appear that what I've said ids at odds with that.

As a practical matter, right or wrong, it does happen. In the case at hand, when faced with an expired ATP result on checkride day and no further guidance from official sources, the question becomes, what am I going to do, today. Faced with that situation, different examiners are going to do different things. Some might say yes, some might say no. If hte answer is yes, and hte new certificate is issued, to a certain extent, it becomes fait acompli. You have the certificate. That's not to say it's completely a done deal. Certainly, if the examiner was seriously at odds with official FAA policy, the FAA could rescind the certificate. It has happened, but is it likely in a case like this. I suspect not.

BUt, I do agree, from a legal standpoint, an interpretaion from an inspector or the FSDO is worth exactly zero.

Additional supporting insight is case law regarding a given matter which, while setting precedent, does not carry the weight of the above three, or actually interpret the regulation.

True, but, case law is a positive indication of how the FAA does, in practice, enforce regulations, and it is also a very good indication of whther that interpretation will stand what passes for review in Administrative law. As such, it has a great deal of value.

 

[BGSkyGuy]

When you say "examiner" do you mean a designee or an FAA inspector?

If it's an Examiner Designee, ie: not an FAA employee, ask him about this, it's from Order 8710.3E, Designated Pilot and Flight Engineer Examiners' Handbook, in other words, it's his instruction manual. The excerpt below is from Chapter 11, Section 1, subsection 2:




If he's a Fed, ask him to refer to this, its from Order 8900.1 which is the FAA inspector's instruction manual. THis excerpt is from Volume 5, Chapter 2, Section 18, which is instructions for conducting an ATP checkride under Part 61






So, in either case, whether he's a fed or a designee, his manual makes it quite clear that there are proivisions for using an expired knowledge exam (even under part 61)

So if he says somone can't use an expired exam result, period. He is wrong. Period.

However, in your specific case, it still (in my opinion) hinges on; "......... qualification training program that is appropriate to the certificate and rating sought." And how "apropriate to the certificate" is interpreted. The most restrictive interpretation is that it means a qualification training program for PIC in an operation which requires an ATP certificate. You may find inspecors who are willing to interpret it less stringently.


It might be less stressful in the long run to bang out the ATP written again, then you *know* you're not at the mercy of someone who may or may not see things the way you want.

I'm starting to think the same. Just retake it and be done. I don't have a problem doing that but why should I blow the money on the book and the test for a second time if I don't have too? I had a great score on the first one. It was a Designated Examiner who I asked about this. The westwind only has 8 pax seats so that won't cut it. Just out of curiosity, what if our op specs required any PIC on the WW to be an ATP? Would that cover it? I know I'm reaching here but what the hell.

 

[Boch]

So I guess you gave up on having jeff do it.

 

[Seadogrun]

How does 135.4 play in to this:

135.4 Applicability of rules for eligible on-demand operations.
(a) An “eligible on-demand operation” is an on-demand operation conducted under this part that meets the following requirements:
(1) Two-pilot crew. The flightcrew must consist of at least two qualified pilots employed or contracted by the certificate holder.
(2) Flight crew experience. The crewmembers must have met the applicable requirements of part 61 of this chapter and have the following experience and ratings:
(i) Total flight time for all pilots:
(A) Pilot in command—A minimum of 1,500 hours.
(B) Second in command—A minimum of 500 hours.
(ii) For multi-engine turbine-powered fixed-wing and powered-lift aircraft, the following FAA certification and ratings requirements:
(A) Pilot in command—Airline transport pilot and applicable type ratings.
(B) Second in command—Commercial pilot and instrument ratings.
(iii) For all other aircraft, the following FAA certification and rating requirements:
(A) Pilot in command—Commercial pilot and instrument ratings.
(B) Second in command—Commercial pilot and instrument ratings.